• European Commission: Interim measures imposed to preserve free access to the artificial intelligence market

On 9 June 2026, the European Commission adopted interim measures against a well-known multinational technology company, ordering that company to restore free access to one of its communication applications for rival general-purpose artificial intelligence assistants.

The intervention was adopted as a matter of urgency in order to preserve the conditions of effective competition in the market for AI assistants. In particular, the Commission found that the interim measures are justified by the need to prevent serious and irreparable damage to competition in the growing market for general-purpose AI assistants. This also having regard to: (i) the dominant position that the target company holds in the market for consumer communication applications; (ii) that company’s initial refusal to provide access to rival general-purpose AI assistants to use the application programming interface of its communication application (which had previously also been available to those AI assistants) and the subsequent re-instatement of access, but subject to the payment of a fee; (iii) the key moment in time for the development of the AI market, where smaller or new operators can challenge established large operators.

The measures adopted are temporary in nature and will remain in force until the Commission adopts a final decision on the case.

• Administrative Court of Sicily — Catania: on registration in the so-called White List as a condition for participation in a tender procedure

By judgment No. 1350/2026, published on 6 June 2026, the Administrative Court of Sicily — Catania division upheld the principle of maximum formal and substantive rigor in respect of the possession of anti-mafia requirements in the context of public procurement procedures.

In particular, the Court reaffirmed that only actual registration in the so-called White List of the prefectures has constitutive value and enables the economic operator concerned to participate in tender procedures in the sectors for which that registration is required. By contrast, the mere pendency of a registration or renewal procedure cannot be considered equivalent to the effective possession of the requirement, nor does it produce any remedial or equivalent legal effects.

The Court further specified that registration in the so-called White List constitutes a general requirement for participation in tenders and therefore “the failure of the economic operator to be registered in the relevant register for activities falling within the scope of Article 1, paragraph 53, of Law No. 190 of 6 November 2012 […] is a ground for exclusion from the tender”.

To access the decision, click here.

• Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport: Guidelines on price revision in service and supply contracts published

On 5 June 2026, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport published the guidelines for the correct implementation of “ordinary” price revision in service and supply contracts (the “Guidelines”), in application of Article 60, paragraph 2-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 36/2023 (the Public Procurement Code), as amended by Legislative Decree No. 209/2024.

The document provides operational guidance to contracting authorities in order to ensure the application of uniform criteria and to guarantee a balanced management of long-term public contracts, mitigating the impact of cost variations and avoiding the arising of disputes.

In particular, the Guidelines specify that, in respect of long-term service and supply contracts, “the choice to conventionally regulate the preservation of a sustainable contractual balance through a correct weighting of ordinary revision clauses” represents a best practice that is “particularly appropriate and recommended”.

The Guidelines are divided into two parts:

• Part I provides a systemic framework for the price revision mechanism and sets out general operational guidance on the modalities for its implementation at the various stages of planning, award and performance of the contract;
• Part II, of a special nature, provides specific guidance on the indices applicable to the calculation of “ordinary” revision clauses in certain selected service and supply contracts.
• Administrative Court of Lazio: AGCM sanctions for the competition-restricting agreement on biofuel prices confirmed

By judgment No. 9405/2026, published on 20 May 2026, the Administrative Court of Lazio reaffirmed that the coordination on the setting of a single price component of fuels (i.e. the bio component), involving certain major operators in the fuel sector, constitutes a by-object restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.

In such cases, it is not necessary to demonstrate that actual harm has occurred in order to impose a sanction, since the conduct is inherently capable of restricting competition in the market and is therefore unlawful. In particular, the judges clarify that the contested concerted practice of price fixing constitutes “a so-called agreement prohibited by its object”. This does not therefore mean a violation that is independent of the harmfulness of the conduct: a by-object restriction “consists in conduct that is per se unlawful (from an antitrust perspective), which renders any investigation into the consequences of the conduct superfluous. In other words, it is irrelevant that consumers or certain undertakings (not participating in the infringement) may have derived an indirect benefit from the agreement, given that the harm manifests itself at a different level of the market”.

In the context of the same ruling, the Court further held that the reformulation — by the AGCM — of the original charges made during the investigative phase is lawful in so far as it “constitutes the outcome of a natural development of the Authority’s investigative activity”, provided that an effective adversarial process is guaranteed prior to the adoption of the final decision.

To access the decision, click here.